The only problem with MS is that they have a dominant position and they have abused that position.

No ... They broke many laws and are being prosecuted for them after the long trial their expensivie lawyer afforded them.

That is why they are beholden to different standards than other vendors.

No , It's the same laws for everyone , other just don't break them or have yet to be prosecuted for them.

It is what happens to BIG BAD companies.

It's what happen to criminal who break the law , making an OS don't make your company bad or big. They don't make weapon or sale them illegally to the enemy of your nation for example.

If MS weren't BAD, they wouldn't be under scrutiny.

They are not an exception everyone suffer the same scrutiny , they even get chances other's don't.

So they can bundle whatever they want and still not have to answer to the same rules as MS.

NO , we have to follow the same law and we both do , in different ways but we do.

It's a different set of rules for different circumstances.

No , it's the same set of rules for everyone , other just don't break them at all.

When it comes to Linux distributions they give you almost every browser under the sun that they can legally distribute.

Not breaking any laws in doing that ...

So where is the anti-competitive lock in?

It's the extreme opposite.

Heck, if MS made a version of IE for Linux and put it under a license that let Distro's distribute it as a binary, they would include IE.

That's part of the problem , Microsoft also break standards , but refuse to support it's ompetition or make compatibility layer availaible.

How's that for a level playing field?

Microsoft is not accused of not supporting other OS , even do it should be , they are accused of blocking competition on Microsoft OS. ( IE is offered for Apple OS , the thing that those who accuse Apple tend to forget is included ).